Effektivität und Effizienz der Arztsuche mit Arztsuch- und Bewertungsportalen und Google

Sander, Uwe; Emmert, Martin; Grobe, Th.

doi:10.1055/s-0032-1321762

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to incomplete databases, it is shown that many physicians are not even listed on physician-rating websites [34,35]. For example, out of a random sample of 298 German physicians, between 75% and 98% of the physicians could be found [24].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies have shown these sites to be neither user-friendly nor patient-centered [2]. Others state that the handling of some physician-rating websites is too complex for some users with respect to the clarity of the physician-rating website or offered search options [34]. Finally, policy makers could contribute to the development of such sites by establishing a regulatory framework to foster the availability of data assessing the quality of care of physicians.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Eight Questions About Physician-Rating Websites: A Systematic Review

Emmert¹,

Sander²,

Pisch³

2013

J Med Internet Res

149

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPhysician-rating websites are currently gaining in popularity because they increase transparency in the health care system. However, research on the characteristics and content of these portals remains limited.ObjectiveTo identify and synthesize published evidence in peer-reviewed journals regarding frequently discussed issues about physician-rating websites.MethodsPeer-reviewed English and German language literature was searched in seven databases (Medline (via PubMed), the Cochrane Library, Business Source Complete, ABI/Inform Complete, PsycInfo, Scopus, and ISI web of knowledge) without any time constraints. Additionally, reference lists of included studies were screened to assure completeness. The following eight previously defined questions were addressed: 1) What percentage of physicians has been rated? 2) What is the average number of ratings on physician-rating websites? 3) Are there any differences among rated physicians related to socioeconomic status? 4) Are ratings more likely to be positive or negative? 5) What significance do patient narratives have? 6) How should physicians deal with physician-rating websites? 7) What major shortcomings do physician-rating websites have? 8) What recommendations can be made for further improvement of physician-rating websites?ResultsTwenty-four articles published in peer-reviewed journals met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were published by US (n=13) and German (n=8) researchers; however, the focus differed considerably. The current usage of physician-rating websites is still low but is increasing. International data show that 1 out of 6 physicians has been rated, and approximately 90% of all ratings on physician-rating websites were positive. Although often a concern, we could not find any evidence of "doctor-bashing". Physicians should not ignore these websites, but rather, monitor the information available and use it for internal and ex-ternal purpose. Several shortcomings limit the significance of the results published on physician-rating websites; some recommendations to address these limitations are presented.ConclusionsAlthough the number of publications is still low, physician-rating websites are gaining more attention in research. But the current condition of physician-rating websites is lacking. This is the case both in the United States and in Germany. Further research is necessary to increase the quality of the websites, especially from the patients’ perspective.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eight Questions About Physician-Rating Websites: A Systematic Review

Emmert¹,

Sander²,

Pisch³

2013

J Med Internet Res

149

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Zur Analyse des Arztsuchverhaltens werden beispielsweise Logdaten der internetbasierten Recherchen zum Finden geeigneter Ärztinnen und Ärzte ausgewertet und häufige Suchwörter (z. B. Krebs, Schwangerschaft) analysiert [8] oder das Suchverhalten von Probanden wird im Labor beobachtet [9]. Über die Arztsuche allgemein ist bekannt, dass die Erreichbarkeit der Praxis, die fachliche Kompetenz der Ärztin oder des Arztes und die Terminverfügbarkeit zu den wichtigsten Informationen der Arztwahl gehören [3].…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Das Entscheidungsverhalten in Arztbewertungsportalen. Ergebnisse einer Vignettenstudie in den neuen Bundesländern

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Wie relevante Informationen bei der Arztsuche über Arztbewertungsportale im Entscheidungsprozess für oder gegen die Wahl von bestimmten Ärztinnen und Ärzten abgewogen werden, ist bislang weitgehend unbekannt. Speziell wird der Frage nachgegangen, ob zugunsten einer guten Note auch längere Anfahrtswege in Kauf genommen werden. Methodik In einer Vignettenstudie wurden 192 Befragten aus neuen Bundesländern je zehn Treffer einer fingierten Suche nach einem Hausarzt oder einer Hausärztin vorgelegt. Insgesamt wurden 1881 Wahlwahrscheinlichkeiten mit clusterkorrigierten Regressionen ausgewertet. Ergebnisse Eine gute Note und eine geringe Entfernung zur Arztpraxis sind die wichtigsten Determinanten einer positiven Wahlwahrscheinlichkeit. Zugunsten einer guten Note werden jedoch keine längeren Anfahrtswege in Kauf genommen. Arabisch klingende Namen reduzieren die Wahlwahrscheinlichkeit stark, obwohl die Befragten dem Namen der Ärzte als Entscheidungsgrundlage nur eine untergeordnete Bedeutung zuweisen. Schlussfolgerung Das Einzugsgebiet der Ärzte im niedergelassenen Bereich erhöht sich nicht, wenn sie auf Bewertungsportalen gute Noten erhalten. Servicequalität ist wichtig, fällt aber im Vergleich zur Note der Bewertung nachrangig aus.

show abstract